# CigarBid Nonsense!



## GTCharged (Nov 3, 2008)

Okay, I just checked their site a few minutes ago, and right when you enter the site, it says Will not sell to anyone under 21! And right next to it, a great big US flag!

Sooo.. let me get this straight? You can smoke at 18 in the US, but you can't buy cigars? If that's so, it's :BS

Anyone want to tell me why? Why would they have an american flag, and not allow you to buy when you are 18, as legal age indicates in the US?

Sorry if I sound a little pissed, but in my area, there really isn't a big selection of cigars. This site would be the only way to buy most brands.


----------



## BigBuddha76 (Mar 15, 2005)

GTCharged said:


> Okay, I just checked their site a few minutes ago, and right when you enter the site, it says Will not sell to anyone under 21! And right next to it, a great big US flag!
> 
> Sooo.. let me get this straight? You can smoke at 18 in the US, but you can't buy cigars? If that's so, it's :BS
> 
> ...


not all states are 18, some are 19 and I believe one is trying to go to 21. The 21 age was a compromise between the US attorney general, credit card companies, and the tobacco companies back around 05 when the AG tried to muscle the CC companies to not accept ANY tobacco sales.


----------



## BigBuddha76 (Mar 15, 2005)

oh, and just change your age by a couple years...they dont ask for ID...not that I'm condoning illegal activities or anything.


----------



## kzm007 (Jul 3, 2008)

I may or may not be 21, and have never had to prove it on any site I've used that asks for it - I've heard J & R or Famous might follow up and be a bit more insistent, I'm not sure. I guarantee someone here knows better than I.

Don't sweat it too much, just bump the date from 89 to 86 :tu


----------



## Warren (Apr 6, 2007)

kzm007 said:


> I may or may not be 21, and have never had to prove it on any site I've used that asks for it - I've heard J & R or Famous might follow up and be a bit more insistent, I'm not sure. I guarantee someone here knows better than I.
> 
> Don't sweat it too much, just bump the date from 89 to 86 :tu


JR, Famous, and Holt's will ask for a scan of your photo ID after an order or two.


----------



## Patron (Dec 4, 2008)

Warren said:


> JR, Famous, and Holt's will ask for a scan of your photo ID after an order or two.


I've ordered from all three of these sites for several years and have never been asked to provide scans of any ID.....on these as well as any other tobacco sites.

What can and probably will eventually happen is how they deal with online liquor sales. Delivery has to be in person to someone at the address who is of legal age to receive the product. Not all online liquor sales do this but some sites tell you it has to be signed for by someone of legal age.


----------



## Boomer (Feb 2, 2008)

Send 'em my picture. They'll sell to you then.:r


----------



## Cigary (Oct 19, 2007)

I hear you pain,,,if you can fight and die for your country, you should be able to drink or smoke. A lot of states still have the 21 year old drinking law in effect as well.


----------



## Totemic (Jun 2, 2008)

Cigary said:


> A lot of states still have the 21 year old drinking law in effect as well.


A lot? I thought it was all.
Wasn't the whole reason for raising the drinking age to 21 so you can get the federal highway funds?

I think only US territories have drinking age at 18 (Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, etc...I grew up on Guam so I was getting legally sh*tfaced right out of highschool! ).

Or did you mean smoking age? In which case, I think almost all are at 18, there's maybe 4 states where it's 19?


----------



## cricky101 (Jan 22, 2007)

Warren said:


> JR, Famous, and Holt's will ask for a scan of your photo ID after an order or two.


I've never had any online retailer ask for ID scans


----------



## Snake Hips (May 30, 2008)

Cigary said:


> A lot of states still have the 21 year old drinking law in effect as well.


If there's one that doesn't, point me to it! :al


----------



## orca99usa (May 23, 2008)

Me, neither - and I've ordered from several.


----------



## GTCharged (Nov 3, 2008)

My mother was talking about the same thing earlier today. She said that if you can fight and die for the country at 18, why the heck can't you drink? It's complete and total BS.


----------



## kansashat (Mar 13, 2004)

For many years I have thought that a person should be issued a drinking license...at say 18. To purchase liquor, or drink in an establishment that serves alcohol, you'd have to have a valid drinking license, which by law, would have to be displayed at point of purchase. This system would be incomplete without a method of infraction, fines, jail time, & possible loss of drinking license for those who prove to be too irresponsible to consume alcohol. 

Of course, there are a lot of holes in the idea, but the point is...there are plenty of 18 year olds that are responsible enough to drink alcohol. There are also plenty of 40 year olds who aren't.


----------



## teotides (Oct 11, 2008)

kansashat said:


> of course, there are a lot of holes in the idea, but the point is...there are plenty of 18 year olds that are responsible enough to drink alcohol. There are also plenty of 40 year olds who aren't.


damn straight!!!


----------



## Cigary (Oct 19, 2007)

Snake Hips said:


> If there's one that doesn't, point me to it! :al


Lol,,,,he was right,,,all 50 states The National Minimum *Drinking Age* Act of 1984 ,,,damn, where was I in 1984? I know, drunk and never paid attention.


----------



## GTCharged (Nov 3, 2008)

kansashat said:


> For many years I have thought that a person should be issued a drinking license...at say 18. To purchase liquor, or drink in an establishment that serves alcohol, you'd have to have a valid drinking license, which by law, would have to be displayed at point of purchase. This system would be incomplete without a method of infraction, fines, jail time, & possible loss of drinking license for those who prove to be too irresponsible to consume alcohol.
> 
> Of course, there are a lot of holes in the idea, but the point is...there are plenty of 18 year olds that are responsible enough to drink alcohol. There are also plenty of 40 year olds who aren't.


I totally agree with you. If an 18 y/o can't handle it, take it away. It's all about weeding the idiots out!  I'm not one of those people who would even think about getting addicted to alcohol, nor try it that much. I saw what happened to my father, and will not under any circumstance go down that road.


----------



## chip (Jan 18, 2006)

kansashat said:


> For many years I have thought that a person should be issued a drinking license...at say 18. To purchase liquor, or drink in an establishment that serves alcohol, you'd have to have a valid drinking license, which by law, would have to be displayed at point of purchase. This system would be incomplete without a method of infraction, fines, jail time, & possible loss of drinking license for those who prove to be too irresponsible to consume alcohol.
> 
> Of course, there are a lot of holes in the idea, but the point is...there are plenty of 18 year olds that are responsible enough to drink alcohol. There are also plenty of 40 year olds who aren't.


Hmmm...this has worked so well with the driver's license....as we all know, a licensed driver is a highly skilled and considerate human being behind the wheel....
Your last paragraph cannot be argued with.....just change 40 to ANY age.....heh...


----------



## snowboardin58 (Dec 2, 2006)

Basically, I know I am legal in my area, so I choose to bump the age by a year.


----------



## macjoe53 (Jul 8, 2007)

Ahhh! The good ol'days when the legal age for drinking in Louisiana was "If you're old enough to see across the top of the bar, you're old enough to drink."

Seriously, I've always felt that if you are old enough to serve on active duty, then you should be allowed to drink. Unfortunately there have been too many families that have lost loved ones because of driving while intoxicated and the combined numbers make them a strong political voice so we have a legal age for drinking of 21 when for all other purposes you're an adult when you turn 18.

The same is happening with smoking because the anti-smoking proponents is filled with people who have lost a loved one to cancer.


----------



## NakedYoga (Dec 5, 2008)

I will preface this by saying that this post is not meant to offend anyone or indicate that I necessarily disagree with the argument I'm mentioning (damn... is it *that* obvious I'm in law school? talk about hedging...). Anyway, the notion that "if you're old enough to be on active military duty and possibility die in defense of your country's interests abroad, you should be old enough to drink alcohol" is put forth a lot. However, it seems a bit of a non-sequitur to me.

My question, then, is this: what is the correlation between being trained as a member of the armed forces and being mature enough to handle possible intoxication with alcohol?

Also, all 50 states have a minimum drinking age of 21. Congress cannot constitutionally mandate a minimum drinking age, but as another member mentioned, the receipt of federal highway funds was conditioned on states' drinking ages. If states didn't set their minimum drinking age at 21 or higher, then the Congress would withhold 5% of federal highway dollars for any non-complying state. Obviously, the policy was challenged, and in South Dakota v. Dole the Supreme Court found it constitutional, saying that Congress's threatened withholding of only 5% was not "coercive" enough to be unconstitutional (based on a constitutional principle that no one here is interested in hearing about). Money talks, so all 50 states chose to comply.

Anyway, my point here is that I don't really see a link between drinking alcohol and fighting in the military. I do think that if you take the federal highway funding factor out of the equation, a minimum drinking age of 21 is completely arbitrary, as are most age-based restrictions.

:2


----------



## 19thHole (Dec 29, 2008)

NakedYoga said:


> ...
> 
> Anyway, my point here is that I don't really see a link between drinking alcohol and fighting in the military. I do think that if you take the federal highway funding factor out of the equation, a minimum drinking age of 21 is completely arbitrary, as are most age-based restrictions.
> 
> :2


I couldn't agree more. Sometimes it just it what it is. People don't seem to be bothered with other arbitrary restrictions such as speed limits, mandatory seat belt, etc... I suppose when it comes to vice's people get a little more bent out of shape. I don't imagine it is any harder to obtain alcohol or tobacco while underage as it is to speed or not wear your seat belt. I work for a high school and see kids that are 12 and 13 smoking every single day.


----------



## icehog3 (Feb 20, 2005)

Cigary said:


> Lol,,,,he was right,,,all 50 states The National Minimum *Drinking Age* Act of 1984 ,,,damn, where was I in 1984? I know, drunk and never paid attention.


When I was in college in 1984 and The National Minimum *Drinking Age* Act of 1984 was passed, I wrote an article for my college paper on the subject.

In my research, in the states I studied, I found that the alcohol related automobile fatalities for persons aged 18-20 were about double the percentage of licensed drivers for that age group. For example, in Michigan, 18-20 years olds compromised about 10% of that state's licensed drivers, but were at fault in over 21% of Michigan's alcohol related fatalities.

Perhaps the drinking age could be lowered to 18, but with the caveat that anyone below 21 who was caught with even a drop of alcohol in his/her system while driving would automatically lose their driving priviliges until age 21.


----------



## emh (Nov 26, 2008)

I personally am bothered by ALL restrictions. If I choose to drink, smoke, cuss or feed monkeys while wearing only dirty underwear and singing "sexual feelings" I should be able to. 
Sorry, but if what I or anyone else does does not directly infringe on someone elses rights or property, there should be NO regulation. The Constitution DOES NOT give you the right NOT to be offended!
As for drinking and the military thing....it isnt about the actual fighting, its about making the decision to put your life on the line. If one can make that grave a decision they can certainly decide whether or not they want a beer! Or cigarette...or cigar...or....
The slope is indeed slippery and the downward slide is quickly becoming unstoppable !


----------



## GTCharged (Nov 3, 2008)

The way I look at it: If you can handle a gun that is capable of taking a life, you should be allowed to drink a damn beer. Just don't mix the two together.


----------



## icehog3 (Feb 20, 2005)

GTCharged said:


> The way I look at it: If you can handle a gun that is capable of taking a life, you should be allowed to drink a damn beer. *Just don't mix the two together*.


Throw cars into the mix, and I might agree with you.


----------



## Shaz (Oct 10, 2008)

NakedYoga said:


> I will preface this by saying that this post is not meant to offend anyone or indicate that I necessarily disagree with the argument I'm mentioning (damn... is it *that* obvious I'm in law school? talk about hedging...). Anyway, the notion that "if you're old enough to be on active military duty and possibility die in defense of your country's interests abroad, you should be old enough to drink alcohol" is put forth a lot. However, it seems a bit of a non-sequitur to me.
> 
> My question, then, is this: what is the correlation between being trained as a member of the armed forces and being mature enough to handle possible intoxication with alcohol?
> 
> ...


The link is not direct, but more a matter of principle. At 18 you are considered an adult in the eyes of the law. You are able to do just about anything *except* drink and smoke. It's a double standard. If you are considered mature enough to handle a weapon, and make life and death decisions, it's not consistent that you are considered not mature enough to make decisions about alcohol or smoking. I understand the reason for raising the age restriction, but maybe the answer is to raise the age of adulthood? or some sort of compromise. 
By the way, whats the link between the drinking age and funding for highways? This seems a little off to me.
Hope this doesn't sound too argumentative. All opinions are respected.


----------



## 19thHole (Dec 29, 2008)

Shaz said:


> The link is not direct, but more a matter of principle. At 18 you are considered an adult in the eyes of the law. You are able to do just about anything *except* drink and smoke. It's a double standard. If you are considered mature enough to handle a weapon, and make life and death decisions, it's not consistent that you are considered not mature enough to make decisions about alcohol or smoking. I understand the reason for raising the age restriction, but maybe the answer is to raise the age of adulthood? or some sort of compromise.
> By the way, whats the link between the drinking age and funding for highways? This seems a little off to me.
> Hope this doesn't sound too argumentative. All opinions are respected.


I wouldn't say you can do everything "except" drink and smoke. Your insurance rates are higher, you can't rent a car most places, you can't buy a hand gun, you can't gamble, etc... Again, I think much of this is highly arbitrary, but data does show responsibility levels drop way off the younger people get. The insurance example is a good one. They know that someone under 25 is simply more likely, on average, to incur damage to a car. I can only imagine they have tons of data to back this up. Otherwise why charge more? They could conceivably make more money by charging everyone the same low prices. High risk pays more. Are all 18 year kids too irresponsible to drink or smoke? IMHO, not at all. Unfortunately, laws can't apply to just the bad ones. I do like Icehog's suggestion of zero tolerance and simply lowering the age for everything. Let anyone do anything they want, but if you drink and drive you lose you license until 21, etc... I would stand behind that. Good opinions and discussions are always great! I actually am enjoying this thread! :tu


----------



## icehog3 (Feb 20, 2005)

Shaz said:


> .
> By the way, whats the link between the drinking age and funding for highways? This seems a little off to me.





icehog3 said:


> When I was in college in 1984 and The National Minimum *Drinking Age* Act of 1984 was passed, I wrote an article for my college paper on the subject.
> 
> In my research, in the states I studied, I found that the alcohol related automobile fatalities for persons aged 18-20 were about double the percentage of licensed drivers for that age group. For example, in Michigan, 18-20 years olds compromised about 10% of that state's licensed drivers, but were at fault in over 21% of Michigan's alcohol related fatalities.


Possible explanation above.


----------



## GTCharged (Nov 3, 2008)

19thHole said:


> I wouldn't say you can do everything "except" drink and smoke. Your insurance rates are higher, you can't rent a car most places, you can't buy a hand gun, you can't gamble, etc...


Actually, in the US, you can do all those at 18 except drink.
Don't know where you got those crazy ideas... lol


----------



## GTCharged (Nov 3, 2008)

Found out where I saw the notification. It's under the info for the site when googled.

"Jan 2, 2009 ... NOTE: CigarBid.com does not sell cigars to anyone under the age of 21. CigarBid. com does not sell cigarettes of any kind."

WTF?
I still don't understand how they can be that acinine...


----------



## Shaz (Oct 10, 2008)

19thHole said:


> I wouldn't say you can do everything "except" drink and smoke. Your insurance rates are higher, you can't rent a car most places, you can't buy a hand gun, you can't gamble, etc... Again, I think much of this is highly arbitrary, but data does show responsibility levels drop way off the younger people get. The insurance example is a good one. They know that someone under 25 is simply more likely, on average, to incur damage to a car. I can only imagine they have tons of data to back this up. Otherwise why charge more? They could conceivably make more money by charging everyone the same low prices. High risk pays more. Are all 18 year kids too irresponsible to drink or smoke? IMHO, not at all. Unfortunately, laws can't apply to just the bad ones. I do like Icehog's suggestion of zero tolerance and simply lowering the age for everything. Let anyone do anything they want, but if you drink and drive you lose you license until 21, etc... I would stand behind that. Good opinions and discussions are always great! I actually am enjoying this thread! :tu


I'm with you about enjoying this thread. And Icehog's suggestion might just be the best compromise. I probably shouldn't have said you can do just about everything, because what I was really going for is how inconsistent age restriction is under the eyes of the law specifically. Some of the examples you cite are restrictions imposed by businesses. They make their own rules according to their business plan and don't need to follow anything as long it complies with the constitution. Not sure about gambling, that's probably a state law, but again, the same argument can be applied here. Why 21? You can't buy a handgun, but if you are enlisted, you can use the government issued weapons of various damage potential. The argument to me is more of consistency from the government as to when you are considered to be mature enough to be responsible for your own actions. It seems inconsistent that there's one age for doing this and another for doing that.
Anyway good banter.:ss


----------



## Slowpokebill (Nov 29, 2008)

GTCharged said:


> Actually, in the US, you can do all those at 18 except drink.
> Don't know where you got those crazy ideas... lol


Sorry but in US you can't buy a handgun until your 21. You can buy a long gun in many states at 18. Most auto rental agencies won't rent to you if your under 25. Not sure about all states but those close to me won't allow you to even do more than walk through a casino until your 21. I think most states will allow you to smoke at 18 but a few like where I live won't allow you to buy smokes until your 19. Now that last one seems really silly to me. You can smoke it at 18 but not buy. Who makes these rules.


----------



## 19thHole (Dec 29, 2008)

GTCharged said:


> Actually, in the US, you can do all those at 18 except drink.
> Don't know where you got those crazy ideas... lol


I didn't say you couldn't do them, it is just the norm. Most major casinos in this country require you to be 21 to gamble. Most rental car agencies require you to be at least 21 (otherwise higher premiums are charged). Handguns are limited to persons aged 21 or higher by federal law (Click here). I can promise you that the average cost for car insurance is lower for someone over 25 than it is for an 18 year old. Like I said, these are not absolutes, just more often than not.


----------



## NakedYoga (Dec 5, 2008)

Shaz said:


> The link is not direct, but more a matter of principle. At 18 you are considered an adult in the eyes of the law. You are able to do just about anything *except* drink and smoke. It's a double standard. If you are considered mature enough to handle a weapon, and make life and death decisions, it's not consistent that you are considered not mature enough to make decisions about alcohol or smoking. I understand the reason for raising the age restriction, but maybe the answer is to raise the age of adulthood? or some sort of compromise.
> By the way, whats the link between the drinking age and funding for highways? This seems a little off to me.
> Hope this doesn't sound too argumentative. All opinions are respected.


I agree with the matter of principle. What I can think of, though, is that regardless of what age you join the military, you receive some pretty brutal and extensive training on how you handle and use your weapon(s). You don't get any training for how to conduct yourself maturely without endangering other people while drunk.

As far as the link between drinking age and highway funding, I think that the link was that the significantly higher ratio of drunk drivers under 21 was a major factor contributing to degradation of highways, which increased the frequency of necessary repairs, costing the federal government more money in repairs/maintenance that would otherwise be unnecessary if not for damage due to alcohol-related accidents (I realize that's somewhat hypocritical considering how the government doesn't seem to care too much about how much money it spends... that's just the reasoning provided by Congress). I guess that argument sort of cuts in favor of relaxing the drinking age, and there are actually a number of state congressional delegations each year who raise the issue, but in purely cynical terms I sincerely doubt it would pass, considering the political ramifications (running for re-election being branded by your opponent as a "supporter of drunk drivers" ). I know it's ridiculous, but that's American attack politics for ya :u.

It's true you can do most age-restricted things by the time you turn 18, except drink. But, if the argument is going to be based on whether you put yourself in harm's way (a la, fighting in the military), think about the minimum age for a driver's license in most states. I was living in Tennessee when I got my restricted driving permit at 15, and my full unrestricted license on my 16th birthday. So at 16, I was legally able to do something that puts you at a significant risk of injury and/or death (driving). I know many states have changed their driver's licensing regulations relatively recently (I'm pretty sure South Carolina has, among others). Just something to think about, I guess.

I think most of the libertarian-minded BOTLs would rather the government relax the regulations and at the same time sharply increase the severity of penalties for infractions, the reasoning being that you shouldn't be "punished" for (or restricted from) doing something until you've infringed on someone else's rights or harmed them in some way. I guess the problem with that, though, is that you have to be willing to look a grieving parent in the eye after their son or daughter was killed by someone legally drinking at age 16 or whatever (but _driving_ drunk illegally, of course), and justifying it by saying, "Well, that was the killer's one chance... hey, at least now he'll be in jail!" I know that's kind of hyperbolic, but you see what I mean.

In any event, it's a very interesting debate. I mean, when it really comes down to it, age really is "nothing but a number." What changes in 24 hours from the day before your 18th birthday to the day of, that makes you suddenly "mature enough" to smoke cigarettes/cigars (in most states), see an R-rated movie, go to a strip club, etc.? Same question with regard to the day before your 21st birthday and legally drinking the following midnight. Again, I believe most age-based restrictions are almost completely arbitrary. Any discriminatory regulation is going to include people who need not be included, and at the same time exclude some people who should be included. I guess you just have to look at the aggregate.

:2


----------



## GTCharged (Nov 3, 2008)

19thHole said:


> I didn't say you couldn't do them, it is just the norm. Most major casinos in this country require you to be 21 to gamble. Most rental car agencies require you to be at least 21 (otherwise higher premiums are charged). Handguns are limited to persons aged 21 or higher by federal law (Click here). I can promise you that the average cost for car insurance is lower for someone over 25 than it is for an 18 year old. Like I said, these are not absolutes, just more often than not.


Oh, I understand, I'm just saying the country is screwed up. I don't know, it's different everywhere you turn. The government needs to get their heads out of their a's and revise some of these laws. Some of them make no sense at all. :hn


----------



## NakedYoga (Dec 5, 2008)

19thHole said:


> I didn't say you couldn't do them, it is just the norm. Most major casinos in this country require you to be 21 to gamble. Most rental car agencies require you to be at least 21 (otherwise higher premiums are charged). Handguns are limited to persons aged 21 or higher by federal law (Click here). I can promise you that the average cost for car insurance is lower for someone over 25 than it is for an 18 year old. Like I said, these are not absolutes, just more often than not.


That federal handgun regulation you mentioned provides a loophole. It applies only to "licensees," who are basically handgun dealers. The federal government *does not* regulate the age at which you can buy a handgun _in all circumstances_. Under South Carolina's state handgun regulations, "(b) The term "dealer" means any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at retail or any person who is a pawnbroker." The key word is "retail." This complies with what that ATF website talks about. It applies only to sellers required to be licensed under federal law. That's why there are gun show loopholes, and private sales between individuals. In South Carolina, you must be 21 merely to have a concealed carry permit. You can buy a handgun from an "unlicensed seller" even if you are under 21. In fact, sellers at gun shows do not have to conduct a background check on the prospective purchaser, which is something that a licensed dealer in a gun store must do.

FWIW...


----------



## Shaz (Oct 10, 2008)

icehog3 said:


> Possible explanation above.


Hi icehog
When I made that comment, I knew that the intention would be to lower fatalities and injuries, by restricting a high risk age group. I'm not exactly opposed to this on it's own. If some of the funding goes to paramedic and other services directly linked to accidents and it's results, then there is a correlation between the two. If the funding is used strictly for road repairs and upgrades, then the government is using coercive methods to get it's way. Even if the end is good an noble, the means to get there is a bit screwy.
It's kinda like me giving you a box of Monte's sublimes if you would sleep with my ugly sister.
Love your input on a lot of stuff here.
Cheers.


----------



## NakedYoga (Dec 5, 2008)

Shaz said:


> Hi icehog
> . . . If some of the funding goes to paramedic and other services directly linked to accidents and it's results, then there is a correlation between the two. If the funding is used strictly for road repairs and upgrades, then the government is using coercive methods to get it's way. Even if the end is good an noble, the means to get there is a bit screwy.


Yeah, it seems coercive to the layman, but the Supreme Court found it not to be coercive under constitutional law. Basically, the main way Congress can regulate is through the Commerce Clause, found at Article 1, Section 8: Congress has the power to "regulate commerce . . . among the several states." Because simply trying to mandate a 21 year old minimum drinking age was not a valid exercise of power under that clause, Congress had to do an end-run and accomplish its goal through other means. One thing Congress controls is substantial purse strings, so they chose a number (5%) that was high enough to get the states' attention, and also low enough that it wouldn't be considered "coercive" (i.e., the state has no choice but to comply... it would be different if the number was, say, 25%). Anyway, that's the theory. There are many other regulations Congress imposes this way.


----------



## Shaz (Oct 10, 2008)

GTCharged said:


> Oh, I understand, I'm just saying the country is screwed up. I don't know, it's different everywhere you turn. The government needs to get their heads out of their a's and revise some of these laws. Some of them make no sense at all. :hn


:r
Inconsistency, that's the point I'm trying to make. Haha....


----------



## Shaz (Oct 10, 2008)

NakedYoga said:


> I agree with the matter of principle. What I can think of, though, is that regardless of what age you join the military, you receive some pretty brutal and extensive training on how you handle and use your weapon(s). You don't get any training for how to conduct yourself maturely without endangering other people while drunk.
> 
> As far as the link between drinking age and highway funding, I think that the link was that the significantly higher ratio of drunk drivers under 21 was a major factor contributing to degradation of highways, which increased the frequency of necessary repairs, costing the federal government more money in repairs/maintenance that would otherwise be unnecessary if not for damage due to alcohol-related accidents (I realize that's somewhat hypocritical considering how the government doesn't seem to care too much about how much money it spends... that's just the reasoning provided by Congress). I guess that argument sort of cuts in favor of relaxing the drinking age, and there are actually a number of state congressional delegations each year who raise the issue, but in purely cynical terms I sincerely doubt it would pass, considering the political ramifications (running for re-election being branded by your opponent as a "supporter of drunk drivers" ). I know it's ridiculous, but that's American attack politics for ya :u.
> 
> ...


Some excellent points. I didn't think of the training aspect when you join the services, but that makes sense. So, to be consistent, we should apply a similar level of training for any of the things you are banned from until you are 21. Just being fecitious, but maybe a little truth in this.

I'm not so sure about the highway funding. Is there that much damage done to the highways by drunk drivers between 18 to 21? I don't know, but I was under the impression that the bulk of the money would go to general repairs and improvement. If that's the case, it's more of a bribe when linked to the age restriction.

Good subjet. Having fun with this.


----------



## chuckster121-cl (Nov 30, 2008)

Cigary said:


> I hear you pain,,,if you can fight and die for your country, you should be able to drink or smoke. A lot of states still have the 21 year old drinking law in effect as well.


 Kansas is one. You can buy tobacco but not booze.


----------



## 19thHole (Dec 29, 2008)

NakedYoga said:


> That federal handgun regulation you mentioned provides a loophole. It applies only to "licensees," who are basically handgun dealers. The federal government *does not* regulate the age at which you can buy a handgun _in all circumstances_. Under South Carolina's state handgun regulations, "(b) The term "dealer" means any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at retail or any person who is a pawnbroker." The key word is "retail." This complies with what that ATF website talks about. It applies only to sellers required to be licensed under federal law. That's why there are gun show loopholes, and private sales between individuals. In South Carolina, you must be 21 merely to have a concealed carry permit. You can buy a handgun from an "unlicensed seller" even if you are under 21. In fact, sellers at gun shows do not have to conduct a background check on the prospective purchaser, which is something that a licensed dealer in a gun store must do.
> 
> FWIW...


Interesting information. Thanks for the heads up! This wasn't something I was aware of. I knew of the gun show loophole, but wasn't sure of the wording regarding buying versus owning.


----------



## icehog3 (Feb 20, 2005)

Shaz said:


> If the funding is used strictly for road repairs and upgrades, then the government is using coercive methods to get it's way.





NakedYoga said:


> Yeah, it seems coercive to the layman, but the Supreme Court found it not to be coercive under constitutional law.


Shaz, I agree with you. Even if the SC says it is not coercive, I think it is pretty clear that it is. Not that I disagree with it, but it seems that it is most certainly coercive.


----------



## NakedYoga (Dec 5, 2008)

19thHole said:


> Interesting information. Thanks for the heads up! This wasn't something I was aware of. I knew of the gun show loophole, but wasn't sure of the wording regarding buying versus owning.


Yeah, it's interesting. The real loophole isn't in "buying" versus "owning." It's in who sells you the gun.



icehog3 said:


> Shaz, I agree with you. Even if the SC says it is not coercive, I think it is pretty clear that it is. Not that I disagree with it, but it seems that it is most certainly coercive.


I too agree that it's coercive. I was just noting what the Supreme Court said. Of course, the Court didn't specify just how much withheld money would rise to the level of being coercion, but there isn't a state government in the country that would refuse federal highway funding, even if it is only 5%. Congress obviously knew that; definitely a shrewd move, but questionable nonetheless.


----------



## icehog3 (Feb 20, 2005)

NakedYoga said:


> I too agree that it's coercive. I was just noting what the Supreme Court said. Of course, the Court didn't specify just how much withheld money would rise to the level of being coercion, but there isn't a state government in the country that would refuse federal highway funding, even if it is only 5%. Congress obviously knew that; definitely a shrewd move, but questionable nonetheless.


Absolutely, I assumed you were pointing it out for thoroughness' sake. I agree with all that you have said.


----------



## GTCharged (Nov 3, 2008)

The government is shady. End of story. 
Now smoke a gar' and enjoy it. 
I have to wait til' tomorrow... lol.. You don't know how impatient I am. 
6 Hours and 45 minutes until legally 18! 
I sure hope to god I like em'! If I like the smell, i should like the taste, eh?


----------



## macjoe53 (Jul 8, 2007)

NakedYoga said:


> I agree with the matter of principle. What I can think of, though, is that regardless of what age you join the military, you receive some pretty brutal and extensive training on how you handle and use your weapon(s). *You don't get any training for how to conduct yourself maturely without endangering other people while drunk.
> *
> 
> :2


Admittedly, I've been retired since 1993 but while I was on active duty (Jan. 72-Sept. 93) I remember the occasional driver safety course we were required to pass back when they issued "Government Driver Licenses" so you could drive government vehicles. They also used to have course you had to pass so you could drive certain types of trucks. These courses always included sections on driving while intoxicated. I don't know if they still have these courses. They may not.

As for training in how to conduct yourself maturely without endangering other people while drunk I will disagree with you on this. First, part of basic training is designed to "mature" an individual and teach you to be more responsible for your actions. Does it always work? NO. Secondly, be in the military and have an alcohol related incident and see what happens. There are steps the military takes that endeavors that you learn the error of your ways and not repeat your lapse of judgement. At least they used to.

Maybe some active duty types could provide some input on this question.


----------



## icehog3 (Feb 20, 2005)

GTCharged said:


> The government is shady. End of story.


Opinions may vary. :2


----------



## Snake Hips (May 30, 2008)

GTCharged said:


> Actually, in the US, you can do all those at 18 except drink.
> Don't know where you got those crazy ideas... lol


Or rent a car, or gamble...


----------



## GTCharged (Nov 3, 2008)

It's legal where I live, end of story.


----------



## j-easy-cl (Dec 2, 2008)

NakedYoga said:


> I will preface this by saying that this post is not meant to offend anyone or indicate that I necessarily disagree with the argument I'm mentioning (damn... is it *that* obvious I'm in law school? talk about hedging...). Anyway, the notion that "if you're old enough to be on active military duty and possibility die in defense of your country's interests abroad, you should be old enough to drink alcohol" is put forth a lot. However, it seems a bit of a non-sequitur to me.
> 
> My question, then, is this: what is the correlation between being trained as a member of the armed forces and being mature enough to handle possible intoxication with alcohol?
> 
> ...


i think the link most people see is that if your old enough to fight and potentially die for the united states that you should be granted all the rights the rest of the population enjoys.



GTCharged said:


> It's legal where I live, end of story.


legally you can rent a car at 18, most companies won't though. same with casinos legally you can do it but a lot of individual casinos have restrictions on that

there are double standards everywhere when age is involved,

right now there are 18-20 year old guys in iraq/afganistan making life and death decisions, yet these same men aren't "responsible" enough to handle alcohol

car insurance companies can charge younger people higher premiums because statistics show that they are more likely to crash, yet there are also statistics showing certain races and ethnic groups are more likely to crash, yet this of course is discrimination and illegal, even though facts support both cases


----------



## icehog3 (Feb 20, 2005)

GTCharged said:


> It's legal where I live, end of story.


What's legal where you live?


----------



## pnoon (Jun 8, 2005)

GTCharged said:


> 6 Hours and 45 minutes until legally 18!


I, for one, can't wait. Maybe then you will stop posting the countdown and act older than 12.


----------



## j-easy-cl (Dec 2, 2008)

:r at this thread


----------



## Warren (Apr 6, 2007)

Patron said:


> I've ordered from all three of these sites for several years and have never been asked to provide scans of any ID.....on these as well as any other tobacco sites.


Perhaps it is selective.

I started buying from JR back in '99. Sometime around '05 or '06 they sent me a form asking for a scan of my ID before placing any more orders.

I did my first order from Holt's a couple months ago and the order came with a request to fax in my license before making my next purchase.

I could be mistaken on Famous but it seems like they asked too.

Never been asked by CI, CBid, or others.


----------



## GTCharged (Nov 3, 2008)

pnoon said:


> I, for one, can't wait. Maybe then you will stop posting the countdown and act older than 12.


Maybe you should stop being such a downer and be happy for once in your life. Oh, that's right, it's impossible.


----------



## Major Captain Silly (May 24, 2007)

GTCharged said:


> Maybe you should stop being such a downer and be happy for once in your life. Oh, that's right, it's impossible.


Have you met s15driftking? It think you guys would become best buds instantly!

MCS


----------



## NakedYoga (Dec 5, 2008)

macjoe53 said:


> . . . As for training in how to conduct yourself maturely without endangering other people while drunk I will disagree with you on this. First, part of basic training is designed to "mature" an individual and teach you to be more responsible for your actions. Does it always work? NO. Secondly, be in the military and have an alcohol related incident and see what happens. There are steps the military takes that endeavors that you learn the error of your ways and not repeat your lapse of judgement. At least they used to.
> 
> Maybe some active duty types could provide some input on this question.


Oh, I think you may have misinterpreted what I said before. When I mentioned not being trained to conduct yourself appropriately while drunk, I was referring to civilians, not members of the military. I'm aware that the military has severe repercussions for inappropriate drunken behavior, and the consequences are quite severe. It's an interesting thought, though, the relationship between going through basic training and how it reflects on the rest of your life, whether inside the military or outside.


----------



## pnoon (Jun 8, 2005)

GTCharged said:


> Maybe you should stop being such a downer and be happy for once in your life. Oh, that's right, it's impossible.


:r

Yep, that's me, Capt. Downer.

Glad you have all the answers.


----------



## pnoon (Jun 8, 2005)

Major Captain Silly said:


> Have you met s15driftking? It think you guys would become best buds instantly!
> 
> MCS


:r :r :r


----------



## uvacom (Oct 29, 2008)

pnoon said:


> :r
> 
> Yep, that's me, Capt. Downer.
> 
> Glad you have all the answers.


I know I'm probably risking life, limb, and ring gauge in saying this, but why not go easy on the kid? Everybody is so happy to have a young enthusiastic kid poke his head in here and ask a few questions, but as soon as he *gasp* shows his age the old stalwarts turn on him. We were all (only just) eighteen once.


----------



## Patron (Dec 4, 2008)

uvacom said:


> I know I'm probably risking life, limb, and ring gauge in saying this, but why not go easy on the kid? Everybody is so happy to have a young enthusiastic kid poke his head in here and ask a few questions, but as soon as he *gasp* shows his age the old stalwarts turn on him. We were all (only just) eighteen once.


I agree...give the kid a break

Hey GTCHARGED.....pick yourself out a good one and have fun...let us know how you liked it. Happy Birthday
:ss:ss


----------



## Shaz (Oct 10, 2008)

pnoon said:


> I, for one, can't wait. Maybe then you will stop posting the countdown and act older than 12.


That was uncalled for.


----------



## icehog3 (Feb 20, 2005)

uvacom said:


> I know I'm probably risking life, limb, and ring gauge in saying this, but why not go easy on the kid? Everybody is so happy to have a young enthusiastic kid poke his head in here and ask a few questions, but as soon as he *gasp* shows his age the old stalwarts turn on him. We were all (only just) eighteen once.


I have no quarrel with you here, this is just a general statement:

There is a difference between asking some questions, and thinking one has all the answers....end of story.


----------



## Blaylock-cl (Apr 28, 2006)

icehog3 said:


> There is a difference between asking some questions, and thinking one has all the answers....end of story.


18 year olds do have all the answers! At least according to my 18 year old.


----------



## icehog3 (Feb 20, 2005)

Blaylock said:


> 18 year olds do have all the answers! At least according to my 18 year old.


Then I need to hit the local high school for some stock market advice, Dave!


----------



## montecristo#2 (May 29, 2006)

19thHole said:


> Most major casinos in this country require you to be 21 to gamble.


I believe in most states, the gambling age is actually 18. I know in WA, OR and CA you can buy lottery tickets at 18 (it might be all states).

I believe most casinos are 21 and over because they serve alcohol, not because of the gambling itself. Does anyone know this for sure?


----------



## NakedYoga (Dec 5, 2008)

montecristo#2 said:


> I believe in most states, the gambling age is actually 18. I know in WA, OR and CA you can buy lottery tickets at 18 (it might be all states).
> 
> I believe most casinos are 21 and over because they serve alcohol, not because of the gambling itself. Does anyone know this for sure?


The 21 year old age limit on entrance to casinos can be due to either law or the casino's own policy. I believe most large casinos don't allow anyone under 21 to enter because they don't want the cocktail waitresses and other bartenders to have to worry about checking ID, even though you might be able to legally gamble (lottery tickets, horse races, etc.) at age 18. It's much easier to have your ID checked at the door and then be done with it.


----------



## icehog3 (Feb 20, 2005)

Lots of interesting information on the gambling/age issue here:

http://www.gamblingandthelaw.com/agechart.html


----------



## uvacom (Oct 29, 2008)

icehog3 said:


> I have no quarrel with you here, this is just a general statement:
> 
> There is a difference between asking some questions, and thinking one has all the answers....end of story.


Hey, I totally agree. IMHO, he was following a salient (but poorly substantiated) line of thought in regards to age restrictions. I just think putting somebody down for that was a little harsh, but I'll leave it at that - I have a lot of respect for the well-established gorillas too, there wouldn't be a CS without you.


----------



## NakedYoga (Dec 5, 2008)

icehog3 said:


> Lots of interesting information on the gambling/age issue here:
> 
> http://www.gamblingandthelaw.com/agechart.html


That information is from 2001 and is in a lot of ways outdated. For example, South Carolina no longer allows any form of gambling besides a lottery. In fact, there were a few "busts" recently in Charleston of poker games held in private residences among friends. Some of the people arrested were professionals... lawyers, etc. Awful in my opinion.

Here's a link to some more recent information, including the recent developments on Internet gambling (which interests me because I used to make weekend spending money in college by playing Texas Hold'Em online!).

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/gambling


----------



## icehog3 (Feb 20, 2005)

NakedYoga said:


> That information is from 2001 and is in a lot of ways outdated. For example, South Carolina no longer allows any form of gambling besides a lottery. In fact, there were a few "busts" recently in Charleston of poker games held in private residences among friends. Some of the people arrested were professionals... lawyers, etc. Awful in my opinion.
> 
> Here's a link to some more recent information, including the recent developments on Internet gambling (which interests me because I used to make weekend spending money in college by playing Texas Hold'Em online!).
> 
> http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/gambling


Sorry, I thought it was from 2007. My bad.


----------



## icehog3 (Feb 20, 2005)

uvacom said:


> Hey, I totally agree. IMHO, he was following a salient (but poorly substantiated) line of thought in regards to age restrictions. I just think putting somebody down for that was a little harsh, but I'll leave it at that - I have a lot of respect for the well-established gorillas too, there wouldn't be a CS without you.


Just like there wouldn't be a CS without newer members like you to keep it vibrant...I have a lot of respect for most of the new Gorillas as well.


----------



## thebiglebowski (Dec 19, 2005)

icehog3 said:


> Just like there wouldn't be a CS without newer members like you to keep it vibrant...I have a lot of respect for most of the new Gorillas as well.


jeez, will you two get a room already? :ss

(oh boy, am i *kidding*! i've seen 'hog's arms in that infamous gurkha pic - don't want them wailing away on me...)


----------



## icehog3 (Feb 20, 2005)

thebiglebowski said:


> jeez, will you two get a room already? :ss
> 
> (oh boy, am i *kidding*! i've seen 'hog's arms in that infamous gurkha pic - don't want them wailing away on me...)


:r :r :r


----------



## Andyman (Jun 8, 2004)

It's all just smoke and mirrors, Smoke and mirrors my friend! 


thebiglebowski said:


> (oh boy, am i *kidding*! i've seen 'hog's arms in that infamous gurkha pic - don't want them wailing away on me...)


----------



## icehog3 (Feb 20, 2005)

Andyman said:


> It's all just smoke and mirrors, Smoke and mirrors my friend!


Step into my parlour, said the spider to the fly. :r


----------



## NakedYoga (Dec 5, 2008)

icehog3 said:


> Sorry, I thought it was from 2007. My bad.


No problem, man. It's interesting to see how the laws in various states have changed in 8 years, which is a relatively short period of time considering how complex gambling legislation usually is. I know that here in South Carolina, at least a couple state legislators have floated around the idea of resurrecting currently illegal gaming, such as bingo (I know, haha) and video poker in order to raise state revenues to deal with this awful economy and extreme budget shortfalls. I don't think that's the right reason to bring back the outlawed gaming, but I do support it. Live and let live, I say... if people want to gamble, let them. Everyone knows they are "games of chance." Treat gambling addiction like any other addiction, and don't outlaw it based on a personal sense of "morality." Sure, gambling addiction has the ability to destroy families and throw them into financial ruin, but so does alcoholism, and we only restrict that by age.

:sb


----------



## icehog3 (Feb 20, 2005)

NakedYoga said:


> No problem, man. It's interesting to see how the laws in various states have changed in 8 years, which is a relatively short period of time considering how complex gambling legislation usually is. I know that here in South Carolina, at least a couple state legislators have floated around the idea of resurrecting currently illegal gaming, such as bingo (I know, haha) and video poker in order to raise state revenues to deal with this awful economy and extreme budget shortfalls. I don't think that's the right reason to bring back the outlawed gaming, but I do support it. Live and let live, I say... if people want to gamble, let them. Everyone knows they are "games of chance." Treat gambling addiction like any other addiction, and don't outlaw it based on a personal sense of "morality." Sure, gambling addiction has the ability to destroy families and throw them into financial ruin, but so does alcoholism, and we only restrict that by age.
> 
> :sb


As an aside, a girl I lived with in the late 90s had family that owned one of those video poker joints in South Carolina....sounded like nothing but trouble. But I like having the option of casino gambling here in Illinois...I don't go often, but like having them in close proximity when the urge hits.


----------



## Habanolover (Feb 22, 2006)

Andyman said:


> It's all just *Ghurka* smoke and mirrors, *Ghurka* Smoke and mirrors my friend!


Fixed for truthful representation. :r:r


----------



## PerpetualNoob (Sep 9, 2008)

Age seems like an awfully lame and arbitrary way to decide whether someone is responsible enough to do something, but how else are you going to do it? Testing isn't much better. I see cars off in the ditch every day of winter, even when the roads are _dry_, and all those people presumably passed a driver's test at some point, fat lot of good it did. If we're going to use age to decide that someone is adult enough to face the consequences of their actions, then they should also enjoy _all_ the privileges that go along with adulthood, too.

That whole 18-21 age bracket, where you're sort of an adult, but sometimes not, never made much sense to me. You're either an adult, or you're not. If you are 19 and go into a liquor store, you're a 'child', but if you get some booze somewhere else and then go driving your car around and get caught, just try convincing the police, judge and jury that you should be prosecuted and treated as a juvenile and see how far that gets you.

If we have decided that a 19-year-old is mature and responsible enough to go to the other side of the world and shoot things with a $6 million tank, I think he can probably handle a few beers.

I'm 47, if it matters.


----------



## Thetpi825 (Jul 2, 2008)

I did a big speech on this in school last semester. 

What I proposed was a legal drinking permit which if you successfully passed a test similar to that of a driving test you would be granted a permit that would allow you drink. I do believe that this would greatly curb binge drinking. 

What I don't get is if you are responsible enough to decide who the next president you should be allowed to drink. Also at 18 you can enter legal contracts such as marriage, but you can't have the traditional glass of champagne with the toast? 

Just my :2


----------



## icehog3 (Feb 20, 2005)

Thetpi825 said:


> I did a big speech on this in school last semester.
> 
> What I proposed was a legal drinking permit which if you successfully passed a test similar to that of a driving test you would be granted a permit that would allow you drink. I do believe that this would greatly curb binge drinking.


I curious as to what you would propose this test to entail? I can't see how you could test to see if someone would be a responsible drinker.


----------



## Cigary (Oct 19, 2007)

icehog3 said:


> When I was in college in 1984 and The National Minimum *Drinking Age* Act of 1984 was passed, I wrote an article for my college paper on the subject.
> 
> In my research, in the states I studied, I found that the alcohol related automobile fatalities for persons aged 18-20 were about double the percentage of licensed drivers for that age group. For example, in Michigan, 18-20 years olds compromised about 10% of that state's licensed drivers, but were at fault in over 21% of Michigan's alcohol related fatalities.
> 
> Perhaps the drinking age could be lowered to 18, but with the caveat that anyone below 21 who was caught with even a drop of alcohol in his/her system while driving would automatically lose their driving priviliges until age 21.


Excellent idea,,,bet that would take care of the debates over having 18 years old get drinking rights. It's very hard to take a qualified position unless there is ample proof of what you are advocating. It does seem that 18-21 year old drivers have more tickets, wrecks etc. than most other driving age group. What is societys answer to this? Letting them text and drive and talk on cell phones? How about letting them only have six months training and giving them a full blown license at the age of 16,,,yeah, we're really thinking forward now. I have a feeling we have bigger fish to fry here,,,didn't meant to threadjack here,,,back to our normal feature.


----------

